Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.
Smt. Parvinder Kaur W/O Late Vijai Pal Singh And Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Board Of Revenue U.P. Lucknow And Ors. – Respondent
Writ B No. 1003602 of 2010
Decided on : 27-01-2022
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 341 and 344 (1)(a) and (f) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 4 to 24 and 29(2) - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 - Rule 285-I and 285(H) - Recovery proceedings - Sale auction - Arrears of land revenue - Limitation and power to condone delay - Whether objections of petitioners to auction sale are barred by limitation or commissioner/any superior court has power to condone delay in filing objections; Ownership of property in dispute and maintainability of present writ petition on behalf of petitioners; containing within issues whether all five brothers or only two, namely Sarabjeet Singh and Vijay Pal Singh, inherited property in dispute and whether said two sons also in view of later developments have any concern with property in dispute and whether objections or present writ petition is maintainable on their behalf - If above two are decided in favor of petitioners, whether there is any force in objections to auction filed by petitioners - Property was auctioned to clear electricity dues of the partnership firm, setup in year 1981, which had installed a factory for manufacturing of Saria on same - Challenged order passed by respondent no.1 Board of Revenue, and prayed for a mandamus commanding respondent no.6-auction purchaser not to create any hindrance in peaceful possession of petitioners over property in dispute.
Finding of the court: Rule 285(H) of UP. Z.A. & L.R. Rules provides that owner of property put to auction can by depositing the entire amount and expenses as provided in said rule, with in a period of thirty days from date of sale, can get sale set aside - But, any person who files his objections under rule 285-I of the said Rules cannot move an application under rule 285-H. In the present case objections are filed under rule 285-I only - But, any person who files his objections under rule 285-I of the said Rules cannot move an application under rule 285-H. In the present case objections are filed under rule 285-I only - A perusal of the provisions of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act and the Rules framed thereunder shows that the same provide a complete procedure for the complete manner of recovery, including, holding of auction sale, objections to sale and disposal of such objections including consequences of not filing the objections. Thus, said Act and Rules fall within category of special local Act under section 29(2) of Limitation Act for the purpose of recovery proceedings held under same. Schedule to the Limitation Act by entry 127 provides limitation of sixty days for filing an application to set aside a sale in execution of a decree - Admittedly auction took place on 02.12.2002 and the objections under Rule 285-I were filed on 23.10.2003, i.e. after ten months and twenty-one days of the auction. Any such objections were to be filed within thirty days from the date of auction - Court has found that the very objections filed under Section 285-I were barred by limitation and delay could not be condoned and has further found that predecessor of petitioners had no concern with the property in dispute at the time of auction. Therefore the petitioners also do not have any right to maintain the said objections and thus the present writ petition. In the given circumstances, since the objections are not maintainable, the merits of the same cannot be looked into.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Heard Shri Shamshad Ali learned counsel for petitioners, Sri N.K. Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Chaturvedi advocate for respondent no. 6-auction purchaser and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Petitioners, heirs of late Vijay Pal Singh (one of the five brothers), by the present writ petition have challenged the order dated 31.05.2010 passed by respondent no.1 Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow and further prayed for a mandamus commanding the respondent no.6-auction purchaser not to create any hindrance in the peaceful possession of the petitioners over the property in dispute.
3. It appears that at the very initial stage, the Court was not satisfied with regard to possession of the petitioners and, thus, on 15.06.2010 the interim order passed provided only that, "opposite party no.6 shall not alienate the property in question till the next date of listing." Even during the course of arguments no claim was made by the petitioners that they are in possession of the property in dispute.
4. Before coming to the facts it would be appropriate to narrate the long and checkered litigation parties went through to again reach this court by the present writ petition. The property in dispute, bearing Khasra No.295, 297, 272-A, 272-B, measuring 15 Biswa situated in Village Behsa, Tehsil and District-Lucknow, was auctioned to clear the electricity dues of the partnership firm M/s Walia Industries, setup in the year 1981, which had installed a factory for manufacturing of Saria on the same. The factory suffered losses and was ultimately closed. The recovery proceedings were initiated by UPPCL for its electricity dues against M/s Walia Industries by a recovery citation dated 17.01.2001. Admittedly, the said dues were recoverable as arrears of land revenue under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (UP. Z.A. & L.R. Act). In the said recovery proceedings the property in dispute was attached and thereafter auctioned on 2.12.2002 and after confirmation of sale auction purchaser also got possession and his name mutated in records. On 23.10.2003 all the five brothers filed the sale objections under Rule 285-I of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules, 1952 (U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Rules). The said objections were heard and rejected on the point of limitation vide order dated 29.10.2003 by the learned Additional Commissioner, holding that the same were filed beyond a period of thirty days of auction, as provided by Rule 285-I. Being aggrieved, objectors preferred a revision before the Board of Revenue, which, by its order dated 18.08.2005, allowed the revision and quashed the entire auction proceedings. Aggrieved from the said order auction purchaser preferred a Writ Petition No.5464 (M/S) of 2005 (Revenue) before the high court. The writ petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 22.08.2007 and the order dated 18.08.2005 passed by the Board of Revenue was set aside, as without deciding the issue of limitation the Board of Revenue had wrongly proceeded to decide the revision on merits. The matter was remanded back to the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue again heard the matter and condoned the delay in filing of objections by its order-dated 12.02.2008 and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for hearing the objections on merits. Auction purchaser filed a Writ Petition No.1196 (M/S) of 2008 against the said order dated 12.02.2008 of the Board of Revenue but a stay order was granted only on 21.08.2008 and communicated to the Additional Commissioner on 02.09.2008. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow however by its judgment and order dated 03.09.2008 allowed the objections on merits and set aside the auction proceedings. The said Writ Petition No.1196 (M/S) of 2008 of the auction purchaser also came to be heard and the Court dismissed the same as infructuous vide order dated 10.02.2009, with liberty to auction purchaser to raise all his issues
SupremeToday
Point of Law : Whenever the sale of any holding or other immovable property is set aside under Rule 285-H or Rule 285-I the purchaser shall be entitled to receive back his purchase money plus an amou....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on the limitation period of 30 days for filing an application against auction sale under Rule 285-I of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & ....
Confirmed auction sales cannot be set aside for alleged inadequacy of price or lack of publicity without proof of fraud or substantial injury.
The court established that adherence to statutory processes for property sale was observed, and petitioners failed to pursue available legal remedies, justifying dismissal.
The main legal point established is that an auction sale can be set aside if there are substantial irregularities and fraud, and the application to set aside the sale was filed within the limitation ....
The court affirmed that failure to comply with prior court orders and the finality of executed sale deeds limit the ability to contest auction proceedings under the Land Revenue Code.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
